on 2/25/01 8:10 AM, Ron Carson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The majority of the occupation-based frames of reference (MOHO, CMOP, OA,
> etc), do NOT exclude performance components. They simply place emphasis on
> performance areas versus the components. As I understand it,
> occupation-based models provide an occupational reasoning for why an OT might
> want to address ROM, strength, balance, memory, problem-solving, etc.
>
> When I practiced in the absence of occupation-based frames of reference I
> had little (if any) understanding as to why my treatment was different than
> PT. Using occupation-based frames clarified both my philosophy and my
> treatment. I continued to perform many of the same treatments but the
> occupational basis of my treatment clearly delineated my role to the
> treatment team, the client and myself.
>
> Also, to me, occupation-based treatment is the key distinction between OT
> and PT and frankly gives us the high hand, especially if we will recognize
> that improving occupational performance improves occupation, improves
> components, enhances environment, improves self-esteem, improves
> self-efficacy, enhances productivity, improves role competence, etc. In
> fact, I see it as an almost fail-proof method to facilitate clients to
> achieve the greatest amount of occupational performance they desire. By
> making occupation the goal (versus the component) clients are guaranteed
> greater success at "doing" and living life.
>
> Ron
Ron,
I findl it terribly difficult to have a meaningful dialogue with you at
times because you in essence have justy restated MY entire point.
I am having a hard time seeing where you really stand on occupation, or
where you find fault with John and his earlier statements. It seems to me
that to find fault, you would have to actually been inside his head during
his treatments. Again, my concern is that you find it quite easy to find
fault, with others practice, but you seem unwilling to take a stand on what
"occupation centered" practice really means to you, and why YOUR specific
definition is the correct one.
It still seems to me that you seem to easily be critical of daily
practicioners and provide no real insight into your own skill of practice so
that we might be able to learn from you.
Could you share what occupation centered practice really means to you, or
give an example of a patient who say comes to you with a rotator cuff
injury?
Evan
---------
*Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put
the following text:
unsubscribe list
OTnow messages are archived at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------
